Recommendations
(Updated December 2003)
The upsurge of anti-Semitic criminal offences and
verbal assaults against Jewish citizens and institutions, but also against
Muslims, prompted the Interior Ministers of five EU Member States (Belgium,
Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom) to issue a “Declaration
against Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism” in April 2002. The
Ministers said that they had already introduced preventive measures
(in particular the surveillance and protection of places of worship)
on a national level against the violent attacks occurring in connection
with the Middle East conflict. It appears to them in the future to be
of particular importance that “joint measures are undertaken on
a European level” and “that a series of actions are to be
resolved which encompass the rapid acceptance and implementation of
concentrated measures, such as an intensifying of the exchange of information
and experience between the law enforcement agencies in the Member States
and Europol and providing more support for the EUMC, using the data
collated by the EUMC. We consider it to be particularly useful that
suitable penalties can be applied for racist offences in a comparable
way in every Member State.”
To be able to do that, state institutions must assume responsibility
for monitoring anti-Semitism in the individual EU Member States. These
institutions should work in accordance with well-defined categories
(see below), enabling them to recognise an anti-Semitic element within
any politically motivated criminal offences they register and to then
incorporate them into their statistics. The NFPs’ reports make
it clear that information on anti-Semitic attacks in many countries
is mainly presented by Jewish institutions or NGOs registering incidents
– and they often only do so when they have received reports from
the persons affected. All too often we are faced with chance findings,
which, for example, have only become public through the regional press
release of a committed journalist. Thus, NGOs have recorded 259 racially
motivated murders between 1995 and 2000 in Italy; whereas the Italian
police have not registered a single case. In Germany NGOs registered
five times as many racist murders as the police. Although the violent
attacks upon minorities with a racist background has raised the sensitivity
of state agencies to such criminal offences in the last few years, the
attention required to accept and perceive incidents motivated by anti-Semitism
is still lacking in many countries.
In those countries in which incidents are already registered by the
security authorities, a swifter processing and publication of the results
must be ensured, and not first presented – as in current practice
–in the middle of the following year by the police, the authority
responsible for the protection of the constitution etc.
We recommend that:
The EUMC requests state authorities to acknowledge
at the highest level the extraordinary dangers posed by anti-Semitic
violence in the European context.
There is a definite need to distinguish clearly in reporting between
acts of violence, threatening behaviour, and offensive speech, and to
make transparent government norms and procedures for registering and
acting upon racially motivated crimes and offences motivated by anti-Semitism.
Only in this way can a genuinely comparative basis for incidents be
attained for European countries, a comparison that till now has been
limited to a mere juxtaposition of incomparable individual results.
The EUMC should propose to the European Commission and to the Member
States to consider a decision for police cooperation according to Article
34 of the Treaty of European Union, which shall bind all Member States
to collect and disseminate data on relevant offences, following the
model of States such as Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. This decision
should also involve EUROPOL and EUROJUST. Such a decision needs to be
complemented in all Member States by a coordinated programme of victim
studies to overcome the problem of underreporting, which is generally
recognised by experts in this area.
The EUMC should propose to the Member States to adopt the proposed
framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (COM 2001/664)
as soon as possible and call on the Council of Ministers to ensure that
it is amended to be as effective as possible to deal with the reported
incidents. To achieve effective regulation of the Internet concerning
racist propaganda, it is essential to extend the jurisdiction of European
courts to include detailed provisions on the responsibility of Internet
service providers. As the Internet must be seen as the central networking
medium of the different ideological directions as regards anti-Semitism,
it is precisely here where a particularly intensive monitoring is required,
one which in the first instance must be undertaken by state authorities,
but also by academic and research institutions engaged with racism and
anti-Semitism. For this purpose it is thus necessary to establish joint
committees at national and international levels. Through mutual exchange
these committees shall make available research results, cases of police
prosecution and information from state security authorities, establishing
a basis for an improved recording and combating of racist and anti-Semitic
developments.
The EUMC should encourage and assist civil society to complement the
improved legal basis. Most of the EU Member States in recent years already
have enacted laws against hate crime or the “Holocaust lie”
as well as anti-discrimination laws, which include religious or racial
discrimination. Due to these improvements in legislation and law enforcement,
and as a result of intensified police activities and increased public
awareness, anti-Semitic incidents and violent attacks as well as Holocaust
denial have less chance to evade punishment. But as the increase of
anti-Semitic attacks shows, laws – although necessary - are not
sufficient to stave off incidents, and in most cases do not cover verbal
threats.
Registering anti-Semitic incidents
The measures put forward by the five Ministers already imply improvements
in monitoring and combating anti-Semitic and racist attacks. In some
Member States (Belgium, Ireland, Greece and Portugal) “racist attacks
were simply not identified separately in crime statistics”, while
others (Germany, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom) have at their
disposal state-sponsored instruments which monitor and pursue anti-Semitic
incidents. In Germany for instance this is incumbent upon the Federal
Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which in turn receives
its information from the various State Offices for Criminal Investigation.
However, these offices record and investigate only punishable offences.
In Sweden the Swedish Security Police (Säpo) records systematically
anti-Semitic incidents. Since 2001 in the United Kingdom the Community
Security Trust (CST), the monitoring body, has been accorded third-party
reporting status by the police, allowing it to report anti-Semitic incidents
to the police and act as a go-between between them and those victims
who are unable or unwilling to report to the police directly. The function
performed by the CST thus goes beyond the possibilities accorded to
the German agencies and also involves the victims themselves. Other
countries, which till now have hardly known any anti-Semitic incidents,
do not possess such instruments and were till now not forced to develop
monitoring guidelines. The European-wide wave of anti-Semitic incidents
has shown that there is now an urgent need for action in these countries
as well.
We recommend joint strategies for action to be developed,
whereby those countries possessing years of experience in this regard
should pass this on to the other Member States. A prerequisite for such
joint action must be to establish common guidelines for categorising
anti-Semitic incidents. Some countries have for some years now already
based their activities on prescribed guidelines for registering anti-Semitic
incidents; these though have not been coordinated with one another and
hence the results have only a limited comparative value. The most recent
definition of anti-Semitic incidents used by the Community Security
Trust in the United Kingdom appears to us to be the most suitable for
dealing with the demands of a European-wide phenomenon. This definition
goes beyond the usual criteria for registering racist incidents, focusing
specifically on criteria geared towards anti-Semitism:
1. Extreme violence: any attack potentially causing
loss of life;
2. Assault: any physical attack against people, which is not a threat
to life;
3. Damage and Desecration of Property: any physical attack directed
against Jewish property, which is not life threatening;
4. Threats: includes only clear threats, whether verbal or written;
5. Abusive Behaviour: face-to-face, telephone and targeted abusive/anti-Semitic
letters (inter alia those aimed at and sent to a specific individual)
as opposed to a mail shot of anti-Semitic literature, which will be
included under Category 4. Anti-Semitic graffiti on non-Jewish property
is also included in the category;
6. Literature: includes distribution of anti-Semitic literature, based
on the following criteria:
a. the content must be anti-Semitic (except see
(d) below);
b. the recipient may be either Jewish or non-Jewish;
c. the literature must be part of a mass distribution, as opposed
to that directed at a specific individual;
d. racist literature that is not anti-Semitic is included when it
is clear that Jews are being deliberately targeted for receipt because
they are Jews (implying an anti-Semitic motive behind the distribution);
e. It should be noted that the statistics for this category does
not give any indication of the extent of distribution. Mass mailings
of propaganda are only counted as one incident, although anti-Semitic
leaflets have been circulated to hundreds and possibly thousands
of Jewish and non-Jewish individuals and organisations.
Education
As already established, laws offer only limited means to counteract
anti-Semitism because it is after all a problem of society as a whole.
Changes in anti-Jewish attitudes can only be achieved by education.
Parents, teachers and day care providers can provide opportunities for
children to express their feelings and channel them into positive direction.
The most important issue is to promote knowledge on Jewish history,
on all dimensions of Jewish-Christian relations and on the Holocaust
but without moralising admonitions. To learn about the Holocaust and
apply the lessons of the past to contemporary issues of prejudice, racism
and moral decision-making is an important aim for the future.
The Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education,
Remembrance, and Research, founded in 1998 on the initiative of the
Swedish Government, is composed of representatives of government, as
well as governmental and non-governmental organisations. Its purpose
is to mobilise the support of political and social leaders to foster
Holocaust education, remembrance, and research both nationally and internationally.
The ITF creates programmes and develops guidelines for teaching about
the Holocaust. Currently fourteen countries are members of the ITF:
Argentina, Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel,
Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom,
and the United States.
We recommend that the governments of the EU Member States still absent
should undertake initiatives to become members of this international
board. The guidelines of the ITF are an important basis for counteracting
prejudices and anti-Semitism especially not only because Holocaust denial
is part of radical groups (right-wing and radical Islamist groups) who
practise anti-Semitism but also because Holocaust education must be
part of European historical knowledge. According to the ITF in general,
teaching about the Holocaust should advance knowledge of this unprecedented
destruction, preserve the memory of the victims, encourage educators
and students to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised
by the events of the Holocaust as they could be applied to world of
today. In order to see the differences between the Holocaust and other
genocides, comparisons should be carefully distinguished and similarities
also should be articulated. The study of the Holocaust must be studied
within the context of European history as a whole. Educators should
provide context for the events of the Holocaust by including information
about anti-Semitism and Jewish life in Europe before the Holocaust.
The main task is to provide teacher seminars on these subjects but also
on racism and intolerance and on neo-Nazi music and propaganda.
Media
The fact that in connection with the radicalisation of the Middle East
conflict an anti-Semitic body of thought has gained currency and become
relevant in many Arab countries, or that an already virulent anti-Semitism,
circulating since the Six Day War and which in the last few years has
become more and more focused on the denial of the Holocaust, has once
again broken out, raises the issue of how the media exploits and hands
down anti-Semitic stereotypes.
State authorities have obviously till now paid too little attention
to Arab-language publications which spread anti-Semitic propaganda in
European countries, whether they be newspapers, audio tapes or the Internet,
which in the view of British authors “enjoy, as far as one can
tell, nearly total impunity” in the United Kingdom. In order to
acquire knowledge of the degree of media influence upon sections of
the European population with Arab or North African descent, a research
study should be undertaken on the Arab-language television, press and
homepages operating in the 15 Member States. Until now it is known that
the Arab newspaper “al-Hayat” published in London and “explicit
– the political magazine for an Islamic Consciousness” both
spread radical anti-Semitism. This is also the case with the Internet,
where Hizb-ut-tahrir (the party of Islamic Liberation) operates a site
containing anti-Semitic propaganda in German, English, Danish and French,
incidentally via a Russian server.
Press reporting of the Middle East conflict was frequently lacking
in balance as well as in a perspective on the contexts and the formative
background history of the current conflict. Partisanship for the Palestinians
as a people allegedly oppressed by a so-called imperialist Israeli state
was mainly to be found in the left-oriented media. Quite often there
were also caricatures, which used anti-Semitic stereotypes (see Italy,
La Stampa). To date there has been no well-founded media analysis of
the European press on this subject.
We recommend studies such as the one about how the German print media
reported four important incidents in the Middle East during the second
Intifada between September 2000 and August 2001, initiated by the American
Jewish Committee (AJC), should be organised also for the other Member
States.
Internet
One of the effective counter-strategies against anti-Semitic agitation
on the Internet stems from the providers themselves. They remove upon
notification – often only after outside pressure – such websites
from the net, or increasingly undertake voluntary self-monitoring. The
developments in the last months in partly impeded or completely obstructed
access to some homepages have shown that such an approach at least hinders
the possibility of placing propaganda on the Internet, even if some
suppliers of the homepages removed from the net find alternatives for
spreading their material through smaller American or Russian providers.
There exists a genuine danger that the far-right extremists can achieve
an even more intensive networking through the Internet, although the
respective links offered, which suggest close co-operation, are often
completely obsolete. Some may lead to the next related homepage, but
this does not necessarily mean that there is automatically a close connection
with the link partner. In addition, the relevant sites realised with
the latest technology are often the work of a single individual or,
at the most, of a few persons whose circle of sympathisers is small.
A whole series of private initiatives have already originated in the
last few years, which combat anti-Semitic and racist content on the
Internet, and with serious information and lexical entries counteract,
for instance, the denial of the Holocaust on the Internet. In the Netherlands
(state-funded) and the United Kingdom (funded by local Internet Service
Providers), Bureaux for Discrimination on the Internet were founded.
In addition, private and state organisations exert pressure on large
Internet providers such as Yahoo and AOL to remove racist and anti-Semitic
content from the net. Legislation recently passed in some countries
(Germany, Sweden) prohibiting Internet-based hate speech exerts in the
first instance a moral pressure, for it is hardly possible to deal with
an international medium which is difficult to control with legislative
means on a national level.
We recommend that apart from state approaches for combating Internet-based
racism and anti-Semitism, which are in a state of flux, the enormous
potential for educational purposes must be utilised far more than is
presently the case.
The extent to which anti-Semitic and racist content is also conveyed
via websites from football fans and how effective they are in mobilising
support is being investigated by a joint study undertaken by the EUMC,
the Italian organisation Unione Italiana Sport Per Tutti (UISP) and
the Internet company ERIN based in Luxembourg.
Sport
Above all in the area of European football a whole series of initiatives
have been started in the last few years, which combat racism and anti-Semitism
in the stadia, following the initiative “Football against Racism”.
The “Let’s Kick Racism out of Football” (LKROOF) campaign
is the product of the United Kingdom’s Commission for Racial Equality,
working in conjunction with the football associations of England, Wales
and Scotland. A Jewish Policy Research (JPR) seminar in London for academics
and sportswriters examined the issues concerning anti-Semitism, xenophobia,
racism and violence that frequently surround football. The research
study on “Racism, Football and the Internet” on behalf of
the EUMC analysed football supporter sites carrying violence and racism
often combined with anti-Semitism.
We recommend similar studies should also be carried out on other issues
in the area of anti-Semitic incidents and placed in an overall European
context in order to establish a comparative basis. For this purpose
close co-operation is also needed between European research institutions,
which would submit their regional studies to, for example, the EUMC
to form an information pool. This is the prerequisite for the comparison
that in turn – based on specific regional symptoms – opens
up the possibility of locating and analysing common patterns, the formation
of stereotypes and the different determining political and social conditions.
Only on this basis, which needs to be interdisciplinary so as to illuminate
the various facets of anti-Semitism from different disciplines and so
ultimately provide a comprehensive picture, can measures and strategies
be developed which lead to a genuinely effective combating of anti-Semitic
tendencies.
Other initiatives by NGOs
During the “European-wide Action Week against Racism 2002”
in March 2002, activists in 33 countries all over Europe showed their
commitment against racism. In France, many organisations co-operated
and focussed on anti-racist education. Their activities included meetings,
discussions, concerts and theatre performances. In Germany, immigration
was the most central issue in debates, demonstrations and games. In
the Netherlands anti-racist organisations discussed recent changes in
politics related to migration and integration issues. AMARC Europe,
the European branch of the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters,
prepared a 24-hour radio-campaign relayed through the Internet. Initiatives
such as the International Day against Fascism and Anti-Semitism (9/11/2002)
are especially devoted to issues of anti-Semitism, in which most of
the European countries – non-profit organisations of the UNITED-network
– are involved with corresponding programmes.
The strategies for dismantling prejudices against Jews have till now
included exhibition projects (see the reports on Austria: The Jews of
Mistelbach; Jewish Museum Hohenems; on Luxembourg and on Germany) and
educational projects and pedagogical tools to improve and foster interculturalism
and diversity in society (see the reports on Belgium and Italy). It
is precisely the efforts undertaken in the school and education sector
that are suitable for incorporating the new challenges posed by anti-Semitic
prejudices amongst the Arab/north-African Muslim immigrants. In the
United Kingdom the teaching method called “Abrahams barn”
(“Abraham’s children”), pointing out similarities between
Christianity, Islam and Judaism, has – according to teachers –
been reported to be fairly successful in schools with a high percentage
of immigrants. Along with this, teachers in some schools have reported
that a generally increased vigilance against racist and anti-Semitic
expressions has been successful in curbing such sentiments. The Swedish
Committee against anti-Semitism has been writing articles and arranging
a series of seminars in different cities and towns. The seminars were
called “Stereotyping immigrants, Jews and Muslims in media and
debate” and got a very good response in the evaluations. The Samordningskommittén
for Europaåret mot rasism i Sverige (Swedish Commission against
Racism and Xenophobia), established in 1996 by Mona Sahlin, former vice-premier
of Sweden, continues to organise seminars and support anti-racist projects.
In order to do justice to the current development of anti-Semitism
within the Muslim population in Europe, other ways of dismantling prejudices
must also be developed. One important component is intercultural and
inter-religious exchange (see Belgium: Jewish-Muslim meeting; Germany:
inter-religious dialogue; the Netherlands: organised meeting between
CIDI youth group and the youth organisation of the Moroccan association
Tans). Also of importance are clear statements from leading personalities
in the Muslim community (see country report on Denmark: “Hate of
the Jews is not Islamic”; United Kingdom: Condemning the desecration
of a synagogue; Germany: protest by the Turkish Association Berlin-Brandenburg
against “playing with anti-Semitism”), which are explicitly
directed against anti-Semitism and radical Islamic forms of animosity
towards Jews. The educational information campaigns within Muslim groups,
such as on the theme “to burn a synagogue is like burning a mosque”,
have encouraged people to talk again and have improved solidarity between
the different communities in this field. Thus, the gesture of a local
Muslim group in Aubervilliers (a northern suburb of Paris) is particularly
symbolic: it lent its school bus to a Jewish school of the same area
after its buses were destroyed during an attack.
Beyond inter-religious dialogue, the spontaneous or organised mobilisation
of civil society against the far right has reaffirmed the Republic of
France’s common values. Such reactions have at least reminded us
that the fight against racism, xenophobia and discrimination remains
a common struggle (see country report on France).
Further research
Many of the issues raised above have specific implications for further
research. In particular we recommend that research studies should be
carried out on anti-Semitic incidents in various fields - for example,
sport, entertainment, public service provision – and placed in
an overall European context in order to establish a comparative perspective
on their occurrence. As stated earlier, a major difficulty with attempting
to gain an overview of anti-Semitic incidents is the general problem
of under-reporting. To help to overcome this problem it would be helpful
to have a programme of victim studies across the different Member States.
Another observation has been that the way that the European press draws
on and perpetuates anti-Semitic stereotypes has not yet been subject
to systematic research analysis. This is another area where research
studies should be implemented in order to fill a gap.
Concluding remarks
The public expects from the police, state security agencies and also
monitoring offices rapid results and from scientific research bodies
a short and precise assessment of the prevailing situation. But unfortunately,
there are no patent remedies and quick solutions available. Just as
there is no simple and clear solution for explaining anti-Semitic prejudices
and stereotype patterns, it is not possible to formulate a once and
for all strategy, which is effective everywhere. The strategies are
always dependent upon specific situations and must react to the specific
national conditions. The individual Member States have to create necessary
framework conditions, which has already occurred in many cases, and
coordinate these with their European partners, not the least in the
face of increasing globalisation – and this has also already taken
place in part. At the same time though, state sanctions, legislative
regulations and institutionalised monitoring can only then bite when
they also lead to changes and the dismantling of prejudices within society.
This can only be successful when a re-thinking takes place in society
itself that is not directed only by the state. Initiatives from NGOs,
religious institutions, trade unions, educational institutions and,
not the least, private initiatives therefore assume an extremely important
role in reaching as broad a spectrum of the public as possible through
dialogue and various actions. Besides initiating intercultural and inter-religious
dialogues, generating a greater sensitivity for terminology and themes
belongs to their most important tasks in working together with the media,
as well as reminding journalists of their public responsibility. The
results of the study by Hans Bernd Brosius and Frank Esser on the connection
between media reporting and xenophobic violence against foreigners can
also be applied to anti-Semitism. Brosius and Esser established that
a connection between close-up reporting and violence towards foreigners
exists, following the mechanism that the more up to date and current
the medial presence is, then the more likely it is that reporting is
structured more in a xenophobic form, setting off a rapid spiral of
violence. But this also means that journalists must be conscious of
their influence on society and act accordingly in a responsible way.
Sources:
C.R.I.F. - Released by the European Jewish Congress |